"And the winner is..." (or why I voted to begin negotiating with S.C. Swiderski to develop the 39 acres on Knapp Street)

Well, it happened: A few Wednesday nights ago the council finally decided which path forward to take in developing the 39 acres on the west end of town. By a 3-2 decision, with the mayor casting the deciding vote, the council voted to begin negotiating with S.C. Swiderski as the developer of the project. 

"Area 51"/officially 1301 Knapp Street

Here's how we got here: 

For as long as I have been serving as mayor (since April of 2016), I've been told the same thing: Chetek has a shortage of both single-family and rental property. On more than one occasion I have heard Barron County Economic Development Director Dave Armstrong say, “You want people to move here but they have no where to move to.” A corollary observation of this fact is the tale that has been repeated several times by many local business people over the years of, say, a new teacher hired at the school but ends up living in Chippewa Falls or Rice Lake due to their inability to find housing here. I personally know of a retired couple who wanted to return to Chetek recently but due to their inability to find suitable housing are now living in New Richmond. All this to say that the idea of growth and expansion of housing within the city has been on our minds for some time now. 

But just how did we get to this point where we're about to begin negotiating with an actual developer? Well, since you've asked, here's how we got here: 

• 

  The house has since been moved
  

  In June 2018 the council approved the purchase of the 39 acres
  on Knapp Street for $150K. The purchase included a pole shed in the back and the former manager's home on Knapp. 
• Between September 2018 and September 2019, the city commissioned a housing study of the county that several other municipalities helped fund. One of the key questions of the study
  included determining the demand for housing for seniors and workforce individuals. 
• In November 2018, the city closed out Tax Increment District 2 (TID 2). The State of Wisconsin allows municipalities to keep a TID open for an additional year (they are typically active for 20 years) and take the tax money generated from it to be used for affordable (a.k.a. “work-force”) housing. During the year that followed approximately $325K was collected and set aside for potential “seed” money for the future development of the site. 

  

  This is still
  available for review

• In August 2019, the findings of the housing study were presented at City Hall which confirmed Armstrong's prognosis of our need for affordable, work-force housing. 
• At January 2020's council meeting, the council voted unanimously that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property be conducted. This is a historical overview of the property which seeks to ascertain the viability of developing, in our case, a future subdivision. 
• At March 2020's council meeting we heard back from the engineering firm that had conducted the Phase I. While it was their opinion that no soil testing would be necessary, in the excess of caution the council voted to proceed with a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Several soil borings were taken and at the July 2020 council meeting we were informed that while there was tar containing asbestos on the sill of the house's foundation (the manager's house had been sold and moved back in January) that would have to be properly abated, there were no other substances on the property that would pose significant risk to future residents of the development. 
• Toward the end of August 2020, with the help of Dave Armstrong City Clerk Carmen Newman emailed 23 potential developers an RFP (Request For Proposal). Of the 23, only 3 submitted proposals: S.C. Swiderski, LLC (Mosinee), Northpointe Development Corporation (Oshkosh) and Whitehorse Construction (Eau Claire). 

  

• On Tuesday, September 29, the council heard the respective representatives from each company pitch their idea for development. While each developer had supplied material for the council to peruse ahead of time, adequate time was given for council members to ask clarifying questions. 
• On Wednesday, October 7 – just last week – the council convened and went into closed session to talk through the three proposals that had been presented. We talked for exactly one hour and then returned to open session. An initial motion to negotiate with all three developers did not pass as the council ended up in a 2-2 tie, a tie I was not willing to break so it did not carry. A second motion was made to negotiate with S.C. Swiderski. This, too, resulted in a 2-2 tie at which point I cast the deciding vote in favor of the motion. 

Essentially, this is the Reader's Digest version of how we got here. There were several other Plan Commission and Committee of the Whole meetings during this time wherein this development was discussed but these were the major stops along the way. 

So the question is, why did I vote the way I did? 

Before I answer that, I want to reiterate something I told Carl Cooley of The Chetek Alert when he asked me for comment on the Wednesday, October 7 meeting: The fact that I had to cast a deciding vote does not mean that the council members who voted against the measure are against the development. In fact, after a LOT of conversations over the last two years I think I can rightly say that all five of us are of the same opinion: that whatever happens in the area that one member of the Plan Commission humorously refers to as “Area 51” (i.e., the 39 acres on Knapp Street) it should be a combination of both single family homes and rental units. Where the dividing lines are drawn is how we get there from concept to turning dirt and raising roofs. 

 

I won't speak for anyone else on the council - not the ones who voted for the measure nor the ones who voted against the measure to begin negotiating with the same. I'll tell you simply and succinctly: I think the time for talking is over. I think if we stay at this point longer we'll just descend further into the “paralysis of analysis” and keep kicking this around for ever for fear of those who don't like the idea of either development period or development across the street from them. The data shows we need more housing of both kinds – rental and single-family homes. It would be negligence on our part as duly elected officials of the city for us to do nothing to try and meet that need when it was in our power to do something. 

But why Swiderski instead of the other two developers? 

Honestly, I really liked Northpointe's lay-out and concept. Since they only wanted 8 acres and we need 1 acre for a future pump-house, that would still give us 30 acres to work with other potential developers. But to choose that way we would have to be in a hurry as Northpointe needed a decision from us post haste in order to have a

It's difficult to read in this image but
this was Northpointe's proposed plat

chance at the potential tax credits that they stood to gain. While we were assured by both Sean O'Brien of Northpointe and Dave Armstrong (who was asked to sit in on the closed session portion of the meeting) that we stood a better than even chance of being awarded these credits it was not a slam dunk by any means. Had we chosen to go this route I just feel a general sense of being rushed would continue to hound us for some time to come. 

A concept for rentals that Northpointe pitched

As Carl reported in his article, all of us are of the opinion that single-story rental units would be far more aesthetically pleasing than the two-story apartment complex that Swiderski pitched at the council meeting at the end of September. But they have led us to believe that they can work with us on this matter and all the other particulars (such as lot sizes and location and street layout) in developing a beautiful new neighborhood in the city. 

It wasn't clear to me just how Whitehorse was looking at funding the infrastructure just that these matters were all negotiable. Swiderski had a different approach. They're asking that we sell the 38 acres for $1 as well as provide them $400K paid in four installments of $100,000 toward the development of infrastructure on the property. Period. In the grand scheme of things this is, as far as I can tell, a real deal. If we were to put in sewer and water, curb and gutter and road ourselves we were looking at estimates between 1.5-3 million dollars. To only have to put up 13.3% of those same costs seems to me to being smart with the taxpayers money. 

So that's why I voted to begin negotiating with them. They are a developer with a proven track record that doesn't need to raise capital to do this project. What's more they are not in a hurry to get there giving us time to work out the particulars that we hope to see at 1301 Knapp Street. 

To those who think the city should have never bought this parcel of land to begin with especially when we didn't have a plan, I would simply note that Jennie O's, the original owner of the property, was only willing to sell to us, that the property is located right next to the High School/Middle School and the price was right. Our need is for more housing and as they say in real estate, location, location, location. Seems to me that was reason enough to purchase the property. And having kicked around the various paths to development long enough, it's time to pick one confident we'll work the details out as we go along.

There goes the neighborhood: The Mill, Dixon and Banks Street

The new reality

Once a month I sit down with a number of residents at Atrium Post Acute Care of Chetek for coffee and conversation. They call it “Coffee with the Mayor”, an opportunity to talk with the “big cheese” about what's going on around town. This month's discussion was all about The Mill (as in, “the old feed mill”). The Mill is soon to open and as the renovations have gone forward more and more people are paying attention and wanting to know, “Just what is going on there?” The folks at Atrium aren't the only ones who want to know that. I'll grant you it's not as big of news as, say, Mary shutting down her Friday Night Fish Fry (now there's news!), but it's up there with it. So, how did we get here? Well, in case you're wondering the same thing here's something of a time line from there to here.

Summer 2016

April 2016. Last spring, Buddy and Nancy Helms bought the old mill and at one of my first official meetings as mayor approached the Plan Commission with a request to use the small parcel of land owned by the city between the mill and Glass on Silk. The commission kicked the idea around for a bit and then voted to recommend the council grant the Helms an easement for ten years.

Remember when?

June 2016. Two months later, the Helms were on the agenda of June's City Council meeting requesting that easement from the City to use the land between the mill and Glass on Silk's building for parking. They also informed the council at that time that they were considering asking the City to vacate the right of way area that is being used as a road between Center Street and Stout Street. [Here's a little factoid for you: the road between Center and Stout is, essentially, an alley that somewhere along the way was paved. Legally speaking, if it looks like a road, is used as a road and maintained like a road whatever else it may be, it's a road.] At that time they were advised that they were getting a little ahead of the process. First things first: they had to address the zoning limitations their business was facing. Get that squared away (they were told) and then they could go through the steps required to get the roadway vacated.

Two nights later they were at the Plan Commission meeting to update the committee on the progress of their project. They also came with a request that a text amendment to the existing ordinance regarding the uses of a business zoned light industrial be made that would allow them to proceed with their plans to open an event center at their location. After some discussion the commission voted to recommend to the city council that the text in the ordinance be so amended with the legal fees involved in doing so be assessed to the Helms.

Under new ownership

July 2016. The first public hearing regarding the mill was held. In order to have a public hearing about anything a few things always happen: the meeting is noted in the Chetek Alert in a timely matter, an announcement is posted on the notice board outside of City Hall and everyone within 300 feet of the affected property receive a legal notice by mail. Of the twenty-two surrounding neighbors, only Bryan Howard, who lives right across the street from the mill, showed up to express his concerns, and they were many: noise (for starters), people parking in front of his house, drinking and basically the whole “party vibe” (that's a quote from the official minutes) the mill will bring to the neighborhood. As someone who works nights and weekends the last thing he wants to deal with is lots of people and loud music when he's trying to unwind at home. He had talked to several of his neighbors and although they weren't present they had the same reservations he had. The Helms replied that their plan was to have events wrap up by 10 pm and encourage “after parties” at other local businesses if their customers so chose. What's more they were emphatic about the fact that they themselves were not seeking a liquor license as it would be those who rented their venue who would dispense alcohol to their guests.

At the City Council meeting held on the very same night following the public hearing, the recommendation of the Plan Commission for the amendment to the text regulation regarding the old feed mill was officially approved by the council. The Helms' had cleared the next hurdle in this lengthy and often cumbersome process.

August 2016. The second public hearing was held. Now that the ordinance had been amended the Helms appeared before the Plan Commission once again but this time to apply for a Conditional Use Permit that would allow them to renovate the old mill into an event center. Once again, the meeting was noted and letters went out to the twenty-two affected neighbors. This time only two of the neighbors appeared in person, Bryan Howard and Joe Nelson (who lives next door to Bryan). Both Bryan and Joe, each fathers of young children, expressed their concerns about noise level, parking, traffic, late night events, potentially inebriated customers and the like. I think it's fair to say they essentially said, “If this goes through there goes the neighborhood.” In the Helms' defense, they tried to address their concerns assuring the guys that their desire was not only to run a successful business but also be good neighbors.

Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Plan Commission discussed the Helms' request and approved that their Conditional Use Permit be granted. The conditions attached to it were simple:

1. That they operate their business in the way the Helms' were requesting to use it (i.e., for events and such).
2. That their business comply with all applicable City ordinances like noise limits, parking and the like.
3. That their permit was good for one year from the date it is issued. If during that year a significant number of complaints are received, the Plan Commission has the right to call a hearing to consider revoking or terminating the Conditional Use Permit. However, if no complaints are received, the Conditional Use Permit will automatically be renewed for one successive year period unless the Planning Commission directs a longer period be set. (In other words, so long as there are no major issues that arise, the Mill's conditional use permit will most likely be renewed in successive years to follow.)

These were the street urchins in the neighborhood back then

September 2016. Once again the Helms were on the agenda of the Plan Commission meeting to talk about parking at the Mill. For the first time the suggestion to make Dixon Street between Center and Stout one way was discussed. It was the recommendation of the commission that the city council get public input about angle parking on Dixon between Center and Banks and about closing (technically speaking, vacating) the road altogether. What's more, they recommended that this plan be sent to the heads of the Fire and Police Departments as well as the ambulance service to solicit their opinion about this plan.

The following week at the September city council meeting, the Helms were back requesting that the council authorize City Inspector Joe Atwood issue them a temporary use permit in order that they could move forward with their plans without installing a pricey sprinkler system. They informed the council that the State was still developing appropriate regulations for the remodeling of old agricultural buildings and it wasn't clear yet whether they would need a sprinkler system or not. At a later date if the State ruled that, in fact, they needed one they would put one in - but only if they had to. What I recall about that meeting that night, however, is that the lion's share of discussion was about parking and what was to be done about the road between Center and Stout. As far as Public Works Director Dan Knapp was concerned making the intersection of Stout and Dixon into a cul-de-sac was not feasible because the right of way is simply not wide enough. The best option was, in his opinion, was to make Dixon a one way street from Center Street to Banks Street and then make the road from Banks Street to Stout Street a private drive. Given that the fire department, police department and ambulance service had no significant concerns about enacting such a change, this plan was adopted by the council and, at the same meeting, the Helms' request for a Conditional Use Permit for 646 Banks Street (i.e., The Mill) was approved.

On September 29, all parties signed on the dotted and officially their Temporary Use Agreement was enacted. Included in this document is the stated understanding that The Mill will comply with all applicable city, state and federal laws, keep the place presentable and, when it snows, plow the street in front of it. Attached to their lease were two diagrams that illustrated what the council had approved earlier in September – mainly, Dixon Street as a one-way between Center and Banks and angled parking on the same stretch of road.

Diagram 1: Making Dixon a one-way between Center and Stout

Diagram 2: Angled parking on Dixon between Center and Banks

November 2016. Bear in mind with this time line I'm laying out that during the entire process multiple conversations were happening between the Helms and Joe Atwood and Dan Knapp, between Dan Knapp and the neighbors, between the Helms and City Clerk and Treasurer Carmen Newman, between myself, the Helms and the neighbors. Understandably, the neighbors were very much not in favor of the changes going on in their neighborhood. Having lived in that same neighborhood all but 10 months of our 25 ½ year tenure in Chetek I can attest that there are a lot of little kids around again, riding their bikes up and down the street, doing what kids love to do. So there was push-back from the neighbors when they learned of the City's decision to make Dixon a one-way. They were so persuasive in presenting their concerns, in fact, that at the City Council meeting that month the council officially rescinded the motion to make Dixon a one-way between Center and Banks and a private drive between Banks and Stout that had been approved the month before. Call it flip-flopping if you will but essentially we changed our mind. But at the same time we also ordered that the Street Committee take this up at their very next meeting with the hope that a solution agreeable to all parties involved could be found.

December 2016. Notices went out to all twenty-two affected neighbors and to the Helms inviting everyone to the Street Committee meeting that was held right before December's council meeting. Almost everyone who lives on that end of Banks Street closest to The Mill were present (regrettably, the Helms could not be present for health reasons) to vent their spleen. Not only were they concerned with the traffic various events will generate but also the potential safety hazard of The Mill's clients, not familiar with the neighborhood, exiting down Banks Street unaware that little children might be at play. They asked if perhaps Banks could be closed off with a permanent barrier that would prevent anyone from leaving The Mill by that route. After further discussion it was the recommendation of the Street Committee that the council allow the following things:

1. That The Mill be allowed to close Dixon Street between Center and Stout temporarily while events were going on to accommodate both parking and traffic. Each time an event will occur it will be their responsibility to put up barricades and notices where Dixon intersects Center, Banks and Stout.
2. And that The Mill be allowed to paint angled parking lines on Dixon between Center and Banks as outlined in the Conditional Use Permit.

At the council meeting that followed this recommendation was so approved: No permanent one-way on Dixon heading south but the Helms had the green light to paint lines on Dixon if they so chose at their expense.

January-April 2017. Renovations both inside and out of The Mill proceed transforming a fairly dilapidated old structure that had become the abode of pigeons and other critters into a beautiful, inviting new facility.

This just happened

April 2017. The Helms contracted with a firm to paint lines on Dixon Street. The lines, which were painted with Dan Knapp's oversight, stretch to where they are legally allowed. Now Dixon Street essentially has become a single lane road making it hazardous for any traffic flow. For the painters' safety as well as everyone else's, Dan closed off Dixon between Center and Stout and then met with Interim Police Chief Ambrozaitis and myself to figure out Plan B. So long as The Mill had chose not to paint lines things pretty much could have remained status quo. But now that they have a true safety hazard has been created. Here's what we decided: a concrete barrier, much like what was placed by the Post Office when Knapp Street east was turned into a one-way, will be placed at Center and Dixon and Center and Stout. This will allow one-way south moving traffic which will accommodate guests of The Mill and Glass on Silk's deliveries. For the time being Banks will remain open to accommodate local residents and the Chetek Marina which moves boats back and forth up Banks Street to their detailing shop (also across the road from The Mill). The Helms will still be responsible for closing Banks with temporary barriers when they are hosting events. All that's left to make this official are the posting of the appropriate signage and the placing of those concrete barriers.

So there you go. It may seem a long walk around the block but that's how we got here. A couple wants to make a go of a traffic-heavy business right at the edge of a residential neighborhood. They see potential success for them and the community. The neighbors, who have to live there, see something very different. There's enough kindling here to make a real good fire. Indeed, there goes the neighborhood. The hope is it all works out but my guess is that during The Mill's first six months of operation everyone on that end of the street is going to have to grin and bear it. Or at least bear it. 

There will be more issues to come. For starters, there will be a lot more cars parking on Banks Street when The Mill is in operation. But like all the people who live close to Camp Randall in Madison know how congested their streets become on Game Day we're going to have to get used to it (Hint: with no curb, cars have the right to park a couple of feet onto anyone's lawn. Just saying). Center Street and Sixth Street, natural connectors to Roselawn Elementary and ABC, will see more traffic flow, too. And it's just going to be a heck of a lot noisier on this part of town. That's a lot of change to digest for people like ourselves who live in a small town for quality-of-life reasons like these.

Every mayor of any small community wants to see new businesses come and thrive here. But at the same time, he or she is also sensitive how people's lives are affected by the changes a new business may bring. I can only hope that all parties involved will do their best to adjust to each other. Certainly there are going to be challenges along the way that spring up overnight like dandelions. It doesn't necessarily mean we have to resort to dumping a gallon of Round-Up on it, however. A few weeks ago when talking with the residents at Atrium about all things concerning The Mill, Dixon Street and going forward from here I think Adelle summed it up best when, after taking a sip of her coffee, simply said: “Well, it will be interesting.” There's an understatement for you but I couldn't agree more.

Stay tuned for more developments